IT STANDS AFTER ALL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1243, 27 September 1911, Page 6

IT STANDS AFTER ALL.

THAT OLD QUAY SHOP. THE DECISION OF Dli. M'ARTHUH. Tostcrday morning, Dr. M'ATthur, S.M., gave decision in the case in which (he Wellington City Council applied to the Court to have the building, 7(i and 80 Lamblon Quay, taken down. The building is owned by' Hamilton Gilmcr, of Wellington, and was at one time occupied by Warnock and Adkin, drapers. His Worship said that the history of the case and the proceedings connected with it were well known, and it was unnecessary to refer to thorn, except to quote the words of Jlr. Justice Edwards in the case before the Supreme Court: — "The basis of an order made under these statutory provisions ' must be that, at the time that the order is made, tho building is insanitary, and ought to be removed under the statute in pursuance of proceedings properly taken." His Honour (continued Dr. M'Arthur) had then proceeded to state that his Worship had acted on an agreement made three years ago, and had studiously refused to consider the present condition of tlie building, which alone would have justified the making of the order. The eifect of this view, coming from the Supreme Court bench, practically confined him (Dr. M'Arthur) to a decision based upon the present condition of the building. This ho had then considered partly upon the evidence laid l)ofore him, nnil partly upon a personal inspection which he had mads on two occasions, when the representatives of both parties were present.

"As his Honour pointed out in the case before the Supremo Court," continued tho -Magistrate, "this is a serious matter, and 1 havo given it my most serious attention. It is not a matter merely of preparing water pipes, or reconstructing drains, or such like, but ono of depriving a citizen of his property. My whole duty is to decide the .question ns to the present condition of tho building. Is it, or is it not, unlit for occupation, or dangerous to public health?" In a brief analysis of the evidence Dr. M'Arthur said: '-'The Health Department unanimously condemned the building, and, if its judgment were final, there would be no necessity for an order from the magistrate unless the order were pro forma. The evidence may be divided into two parts: that of the Health Deportment, and that of tho owner of the building. This part of the evidence may be summed <:p as a divided opinion as to the condition of the building. The evidence of the Health Department is combated by equally good authorities on the owner's side. Tho other class of witnesses were experienced builders, and, of these, Messrs. Bennett and Nicholson were called for the corporation. In cress-, examination, Mr. Bennett stated: "It would be wasteful to destroy the whole building. I would think it hard if I could not get a permit to repair the building., Jlr. Nicholson had stated that the building could be put into a satisfactory condition."

llio City Engineer had stated in evidence that the purpose far which tho .building- was to be used would have a great deal to do with the condemnation. lie had further stated that, in view of tho evidence given—that is, the Health lJcpartment's evidence—he could not recommend restoration. It had to be noted however, that the City Engineer had not heard the expert evidence tendered bv tho owner. In.cross-examination, he had Mid: fho building can be ventilated , a* it exists. . . . Jt could be put in a sanitary condition at a big expense." The .Department has shown no ,cns« of disease arising from, or aggravated by, tho ociipation of the biiildinsr. On' tho hand, the medical experts called for the defence had been of opinion that th,building is not insanitary, and that it is not dangerous to public health. Tho builders called are; prepared to make n good and substantial building, rcmovin" sm'toUM" a moderate Sil,n of fro 1"

"In my opinion," concluded tho magistrate, in giving the essential part of the decision, "tho building is not unfit for occupation, nor is it dangerous to public health. The memorial applying for an order that the building be taken down is dismissed." No costs were allowed.